Post navigation

Well, another video in the “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” series has been released. After Anita Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter campaign that raised her almost $160,000, with promises of well-researched and thorough analysis in videos, what have her fans gotten? Well, more of the same. I’ve already talked about how she uses other people’s Let’s Play videos, without crediting them. So, she’s a plagiarist who can’t do original research. If you look at the video to which I’m attacking, you’ll see that the “sources” to back up her claims are all feminist blogs and videos. The two studies she has are laughably terrible, with low sample sizes and results that seem skewed. This is what almost $160,000 buys? This caliber of “research?” I wrote about stuff that bugged me in her “Damsels in Distress” videos, now I’m going to say something that bugs me in this video.

Let me start off by saying that Anita Sarkeesian is part of the Sex – (negative) feminism. It’s pretty clear that she has an unbelievably low opinion of women who openly express their sexuality, are comfortable with it, along with women who are in the sex industries – such as: pornography, erotic dancing and prostitution. What’s more, she’s a complete hypocrite in doing exactly what she is against – judging women based on their appearance. It’s neat how she is completely unable to reconcile that. In fact, she straight-up seems to not care that she ran right into that brick wall. Sarkeesian talks about the gaming audience, particularly males, with whom it is abundantly clear she has absolutely no repore with. She has no idea what is driving the male audience, because that would have required doing actual research. Nope, instead, she decides that she is just going to say that this is how men are, and if you disagree, well, you’re a misogynist. I’m not surprised about that, given what I’ve seen from her brand of “feminism,” but the fact that she takes it upon herself to judge men this much shows that you must think that your shit doesn’t stink and that you are the greatest mind among us.

Now, much like her “Damsels in Distress” videos, there were certain examples that I railed on. For this video, there is one example in-particular that I wanted to get on about – the one from Watch Dogs. Now, I have played Watch Dogs. I am going to be doing a review of it in the near future (for those who say I’m late to the party, I’m a poor gamer and I don’t get stuff that immediately comes out unless I know I have the funds and a really stoked, as I am for The Evil Within). The example Sarkeesian uses is of the main character infiltrating a sex club and following his target. As with all her examples, there is NEVER any context. What makes that so offensive in this game is that, if she had actually played this game or done one miniscule amount of ACTUAL research, then she would know that this is a place where sex trafficking is taking place. You are trying to find the people in charge and take down the ring. That scene is not, in any way, portrayed as something positive. In fact, there are comments from both the character and his contacts about how awful this kind of industry is. If you were actually capable of doing the research that you pledged in you Kickstarter video, then you’d know that. You’d know that this example is wrong. But that would be asking too much of you, I know.

The thing that bothers me most about this, though, is how this video shows off just how little Anita actually knows about game development. It’s telling that she can only use examples of strip clubs and hookers in the GTA series. She can’t go after the relationship building elements in the Mass Effect series (even though they are infinitely more simplistic that real relationships, they at least try and make it feel real), because that derails her position of how women have no agency in video games in regards to their own sexuality. It would be like saying that the character Jack being covered in tattoos and half-naked is a sex object because she’s half-naked. Wrong! Jack is an interesting character with a fascinating back-story that you learn over the course of talking with her and getting to know her. She is in charge of who she is and doesn’t settle for anything less.

Anita Sarkeesian believes that women who are in the sex industry are only there because of men and have absolutely no free will of their own. And while there is quite a bit of that in the realms of prostitution, the reality is that this is REALLY misogynistic because it is telling women – you have no choices. You are only ever doing what you’re told, so now let me tell you want to do. How does she not see the problem with that? This is something that I have seen all over modern feminism – this idea that they have to tell women why they’re wrong and how they can become right. The exact same thing that they accuse my gender of doing. Why does being two-faced become legitimate when they do it? Lots of questions, many answers.

The last thing that bugs me is that it FINALLY has women who are turning on Anita. Her audience didn’t like the unflattering statements about women who are open about their sexuality and not ashamed to be provocative. But that’s all they had a problem with. I guess asking her audience to look critically at her statements truly is asking too much. What a pity.

Until next time, a quote,

“When people are two-faced, the one thing you know for sure is – you can’t trust either of them.” -Doe Zantamata

I know I’m late here, but it doesn’t shock me now that Anita is against women who use their bodies in certain ways, because she has flat out admitted that feminism is about liberating women, not letting them make their own choices.

I find that definition so ironic, considering that “liberating women” should be about them making their own choices. But that’s Puritan Feminism for ya. Like any religion, they have a way around any contradictions. Namely – Patriarchy!